JAYKRISHNAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions and therefore they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience I will refer to the facts in Writ Petition (C) No. 27385/2008.

(2.) The petitioners claim to be the owners of certain properties having an extent of 16.54 ares lying in Aluva East Village and according to them, the property has been lying without any agricultural operation for more than twenty years. Ext. P1 application was filed before the second respondent under the Land Utilisation Act. Apparently, Ext. P1 application along with the decision of the Keezhmadu Grama Panchayat were forwarded to the 3rd respondent who forwarded the same to the 4th respondent. According to the petitioners, the 4th respondent had reported that the property cannot be used for agricultural purposes. But even thereafter, the 2nd respondent has not taken a decision on the application presumably on the basis of Ext. P5 circular which had referred to a proposal for a bill imposing restrictions on conversion of land. It is in these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the RDO to pass an order on Ext. P1 application ignoring Ext. P5 circular.

(3.) Similar issues are raised in other writ petitions also. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that in one of the cases report from the Agricultural Officer has been received and in other cases report from the Agricultural Officer has been called for by the Tahsildar.